The Choice Between Action and Inaction in IraqI think we need to get over the idea of preemption. Attacking a dictatorship is not preemption--the Islamic tyrants have been initiating force for time immemorial. If the US judges it in its interest to remove them, it has every right. But that makes me wonder—why has the choice been action in Iraq and inaction in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice discussed protecting the American people from the terrorist threat in three important speeches this week.
"American cannot retreat from our responsibilities and hope for the best. Our security will not be gained by timid measures. Our security requires constant vigilance and decisive action. I believe America has only one option: We must fight this war until the work is done," President Bush said.
Critics question the administration's pre-emption policy, but offer no solution for dealing with the threats facing our nation. Vice President Cheney made clear the choice that President Bush has made, "As long as George W. Bush is President of the United States, this country will not permit gathering threats to become certain tragedies."
President Bush's decision to act in Iraq has not only made America safer, it has liberated an oppressed people. President Bush said, "Who can possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power? Surely not the dissidents who would be in his prisons or end up in mass graves. Surely not the men and women who would fill Saddam's torture chambers, or the women in his rape rooms. Surely not the victims he murdered with poison gas. Surely not anyone who cares about human rights and democracy and stability in the Middle East. There is only one decent and humane reaction to the fall of Saddam Hussein: Good riddance."
Monday, October 13, 2003
The War: The Choice Between Action and Inaction
I received this in mass e-mail from the Bush '04 team:
Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 10:06 AM